- This topic has 3,676 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Keith said to kathi:
Quote It is like Jack said, “if you can depart from one point of teaching from the Forefathers then so can he”. This is what the Nicene Creed also said…
[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]
Keith,Kathi is just trying to create confusion here. I have ALWAYS asserted that Jesus is the ETERNAL Word and that His Sonship has reference to His OFFICE and NOT His BEING.
Upon Christ's EXALTATION God said, “I will BECOME a Father to Him” (Heb. 1). Therefore, Christ's Sonship has to do with the OFFICE He assumed and NOT to His BEING.
My view does no harm to Christ's ETERNAL being. I thank my Lord that I am being misrepresented here. It lets me know that the truth is pricking hearts.
Jack
Keith said to Mike:
Quote God did not bring birth to an angel that became a man and ceased to be an angel for awhile and then ceased to be a man to become an angel again who is “a little god” that we serve and bow down too that we call our god but he is not the “True god” because we only serve “one god”. 
Yet I am criticized for my view that Christ's name as Son has reference to His office.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 29 2011,12:36) Keith said to Mike: Quote God did not bring birth to an angel that became a man and ceased to be an angel for awhile and then ceased to be a man to become an angel again who is “a little god” that we serve and bow down too that we call our god but he is not the “True god” because we only serve “one god”.
Yet I am criticized for my view that Christ's name as Son has reference to His office.
JackAnd they say our doctrine is confusing.
WJ
Hi Keith,
Do you believe that the sonship is just an 'office' given to the 'Word?' Or do you believe it is a relationship that the Father/Son have before the ages. If the 'Word' being a Son is just an office then it would seem that the 'first person of the trinity' is only holding an office as Father and not a literal Father in regards to the Son. Anyway, please answer that question for me, the one that I bolded here.Thanks,
KathiQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 29 2011,09:39) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 28 2011,19:18) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,13:39) Do you have a scripture that says Jesus was “concieved” at all before he came in the flesh?
Yeah,Psalm 2:7, as supported by John 3:16. Jesus was already God's only begotten Son when he was originally SENT into the world.
Now, WHO'S only begotten Son is Jesus? GOD'S? Or God's HOLY SPIRIT'S? Jesus doesn't say the HOLY SPIRIT loved the world and sent HIS Son, does he? And WHO does Jesus call his Father?
mike
Wrong.That scripture has already been debunked because it says he was begotten in time and we know Jesus was before time because he was already the Word that was with God and was God in the beginning.
The scriptures say nothing came into being without him and we know he didn't create himself.
WJ
Come on Keith.
Debunked by WHO? YOU? 
Did you know the earth was created in the beginning? Not “began to be planned out to be created at some later time”, but CREATED, as in PAST TENSE, in the beginning.
Does our earth also exist “outside of time”?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 29 2011,11:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 29 2011,11:18) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,13:39) Do you have a scripture that says Jesus was “concieved” at all before he came in the flesh?
Yeah,Psalm 2:7, as supported by John 3:16. Jesus was already God's only begotten Son when he was originally SENT into the world.
Now, WHO'S only begotten Son is Jesus? GOD'S? Or God's HOLY SPIRIT'S? Jesus doesn't say the HOLY SPIRIT loved the world and sent HIS Son, does he? And WHO does Jesus call his Father?
mike
Nope! Psalm 2 says “I have set My King upon My holy hill…this day I have begotten You” (vs. 6-7).Jesus was NOT installed as King upon God's holy hill UNTIL His resurrection. This is when the Psalm says Jesus was 'begotten.'
WHY DO YOU AND KATHI IGNORE VERSE 6?
So Jesus wasn't yet the King of the Jews when he was on earth? Hmmmm……………mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 29 2011,10:55) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,18:20) Yes Keith, I disagree with that. It was the power that is linked to the resurrection, not the Sonship. Also, I disagree…and so do other church fathers, btw, about those who believe that the Son did not become the Son till after creation, so do the main Christian creeds. I even once showed you a council that said those who believe in such a way, let him be anathema:
Quote Council of Constantinople II “If anyone does not confess that there are two generations of the Word of God, one from the Father before all ages, without time and incorporeally, the other in the last days when the same came down from heaven and was incarnate . . . let such a one be anathema” (Anathemas Concerning the Three Chapters, canon 2 [A.D. 553]).
So you see, you may think it is not important to believe when the Son became the Son, but some do so much that things like this are written. They would see that you and Jack have two different Jesus'.
Kathi
KathiIt is like Jack said, “if you can depart from one point of teaching from the Forefathers then so can he”.
This is what the Nicene Creed also said…
[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]
If his essence “became” a Son then that means something changed.
You just asked me if I believe everything that I read from the Forefathers that clearly disagree with your theory that Jesus had a beginning as a Son.
Don't you see this as being a little hypocritical on your part to make this accusation against Jack?
WJ
Keith,Quote It is like Jack said, “if you can depart from one point of teaching from the Forefathers then so can he”. Whoa now that's rational…a low point for you both with a statement like that, sorry.
Quote [But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]If his essence “became” a Son then that means something changed. Keith, I don't believe that there was a time when He was not, I just believe there was a time when He was yet to be begotten. I have been telling you that for a while now, do you not see that? The essence always was a Son, the Son was not begotten till “Let there be light,” but that doesn't mean that He did not exist as the Son WITHIN the Father before He was begotten.
Quote You just asked me if I believe everything that I read from the Forefathers that clearly disagree with your theory that Jesus had a beginning as a Son. Don't you see this as being a little hypocritical on your part to make this accusation against Jack?
Hypocritical on your part, yes, not mine.
Remember…you were 'amazed' at how Mike and I could quote trinitarians writings when we didn't agree with the conclusion.
I asked you if you only quote from those when you agree with their conclusion and you answered 'no.' Which i thought was like the pot calling the kettle black since you do the same thing that you were 'amazed' at me doing.
I never denied quoting from someone who I disagree with in other areas. Other people's writings are not anything like a creed though that is foundational in all trinitarian churches. If one claims to be a trinitarian and doesn't adhere to a main teaching of trinitarians like the two creeds stating the sonship began by being begotten before the ages, that is not like disagreeing with a part of what a church father wrote…vastly different, imo.
You two have two different Jesus'.
You Keith agree completely with the creeds,
Jack does not, yet you don't see any problem with that. As long as it ends up 3 in 1…the second person could be completely different in how He is a son but as long as it ends up 3 in 1 you are ok with that, right? That is the way it appears, Keith.Do I have to have pom poms and jump up and down and cheer for your every post for you to be for me and not against me?
Kathi
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 29 2011,11:23) God did not bring birth to an angel [a god] that became a man and ceased to be an angel for awhile and then ceased to be a man to become an angel again who is “a little god” that we serve and bow down too that we call our god but he is not the “True god” because we only serve “one god”.
Yeah, you're right Keith. It makes MUCH more sense that God Almighty begot God Almighty, who He called His “Son”, and who then became a man who was still God Almighty but for some reason was able to be killed by these puny humans He created. Then God Almighty died, but was raised back to life by God Almighty, who told the God Almighty who died that the death He Himself created, that USED TO have power over Him, no longer does, so He won't ever have to die again. Thankfully, God Almighty raised God Almighty to the right hand of God Almighty, where God Almighty will rule for a time, but then will hand the Kingdom back over to God Almighty. But don't feel bad for God Almighty, because he will continue to rule as a Prince to God Almighty, for God Almighty will be their Prince, and God Almighty will be their God.No, that's not confusing in the least.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 29 2011,11:53) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 29 2011,08:55) Keith,
Also, Jack believes that the Son had a beginning because there was a time when He was not the Son. I think he believes that the Word didn't have a beginning, but as the Son, the Son had a beginning. From what I can tell anyway. You do have different Jesus' because His Jesus wasn't a Son till the resurrection, your Jesus was always eternally begotten…big difference whether you like it or not.Kathi
Kathi,You are misrepresenting me but I forgive you. I have said that Jesus was the ETERNAL Word who BECAME Son.
Jack
Jack,
I appreciate your forgiving spirit and I'm sorry if I don't get what you are saying. I still don't understand how you can say that He 'became' a Son and not imply at the same time that He once wasn't a Son. If He once wasn't a Son, then there was a time when the Son was not. That seems reasonable to conclude when you use the word 'became.'For instance,
The word 'became' flesh…so before that, the word was not flesh…furthermore, there was a time when that flesh was not. Get it?I am not saying that you say that there was a time when the Word was not, I am saying that you imply that there was a time when the Son was not. Maybe it is just a matter of misunderstanding, Idk.
Kathi
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 29 2011,21:37) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 29 2011,11:23) God did not bring birth to an angel [a god] that became a man and ceased to be an angel for awhile and then ceased to be a man to become an angel again who is “a little god” that we serve and bow down too that we call our god but he is not the “True god” because we only serve “one god”.
Yeah, you're right Keith. It makes MUCH more sense that God Almighty begot God Almighty, who He called His “Son”, and who then became a man who was still God Almighty but for some reason was able to be killed by these puny humans He created. Then God Almighty died, but was raised back to life by God Almighty, who told the God Almighty who died that the death He Himself created, that USED TO have power over Him, no longer does, so He won't ever have to die again. Thankfully, God Almighty raised God Almighty to the right hand of God Almighty, where God Almighty will rule for a time, but then will hand the Kingdom back over to God Almighty. But don't feel bad for God Almighty, because he will continue to rule as a Prince to God Almighty, for God Almighty will be their Prince, and God Almighty will be their God.No, that's not confusing in the least.
mike
Well, I know why you are confused if that is the only way you can see Jesus as almighty. Let me clear that up for you Mike…It makes MUCH more sense that God Almighty begot the Begotten God Almighty, who He called His “Son”, and who then became a man who was still the Begotten God Almighty but for some reason was able to be killed (it was according to the flesh…that is why He could be killed) by these puny humans He created. Then the flesh of the Begotten God Almighty died, but was raised back to life by God Almighty, who told the Begotten God Almighty who died that the death He Himself created, that USED TO have power over Him, according to the flesh, no longer does, so He won't ever have to die again. Thankfully, God Almighty the Father raised the Begotten God Almighty, the Son to the right hand of God Almighty the Father, where the Begotten God Almighty, the Son will rule for a time, but then will hand the Kingdom back over to God Almighty, the Father. But don't feel bad for the Begotten God Almighty,the Son because he will continue to rule as a Prince to God Almighty, the Father for the Begotten God Almighty, the Son will be their Prince, and God Almighty will be their God.
There I added what I have italicized to make it clearer…I hope you don't mind.
KathiQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 29 2011,12:11) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,19:59) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,17:43) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,16:49) You take that true relationship away and you have not a literal son but a figurative son. I believe the true relationship of Father/Son is monumental and a central teaching of the gospels.
Hi KathiSo what you are saying is unless one is “a literal son” then one can not be a true Son? Where are the scriptures for that?
God has to bring birth to a literal Son for him to be a “true Son”?
Not so because the Word was always with the Father and
David was the Fathers firstborn Son not by birth but because God loved him and declared it so.
Isaac was the “Monogenes” Son of Abraham and declared to be the first born Son because he was loved.
What scripture states a Son cannot be “Fully” a Son unless he is “born” or “created”?
WJ
Keith,you said:
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,17:43) So what you are saying is unless one is “a literal son” then one can not be a true Son? Where are the scriptures for that? No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that unless the Son of God wasn't a literal Son, He cannot be God…begotten God with the same nature as His Father.
Hi Kathi'The truth is he cannot be God if he had a beginning!
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,19:59) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,17:43) God has to bring birth to a literal Son for him to be a “true Son”?
God has to bring birth to a literal Son for Him to be a true begotten God and the only begotten Son.
God doesn’t literally bring birth to Gods or a God. An infinite God did not bring birth to another infinite God Kathi.If Jesus is the same eternal essence, substance of the Father, then you are saying part of the Fathers essence ceased to be the Father to become the Son.
According to you the essence of the Father broke off into another being called the Son and that part of the eternal infinite essence of God became the Son and the part of the infinite essence of God that became the Son now has also become the infinite essence or God.
So you have two Gods who are infinitely equal, isn’t that what you believe?
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,19:59) A natural son has the nature and genes of his father. Why do you need scripture, for this is obvious.
The Father and Jesus are not natural are they? How can you compare the Father and Jesus with the reproduction of a human man and woman? Did your husband literally bring birth to your Son?WJ
No Keith, that is not what I am saying.Quote The truth is he cannot be God if he had a beginning!
I am not saying that He had a beginning…I'm saying that He existed before He was begotten.Quote If Jesus is the same eternal essence, substance of the Father, then you are saying part of the Fathers essence ceased to be the Father to become the Son. Not exactly what I am saying here either. Jesus is the same eternal essence in the Father, not part of the Father's substance. Part of my essence did not cease to be me to bring an offspring into the world.
The Father was always with the Son even when the Son wasn't begotten yet. The Son wasn't coming from Him yet until He was begotten.
Quote According to you the essence of the Father broke off into another being called the Son and that part of the eternal infinite essence of God became the Son and the part of the infinite essence of God that became the Son now has also become the infinite essence or God. I don't know where you get this? Not from me.
My Son did not exist within me by breaking off a part of my essence. I appreciate you trying to understand me but are you really because you are not really getting it. The essence didn't become the Son, the essence of the Son was always the essence of the Son which naturally was like the essence of the Father…they had the same nature. Your children share your nature but they didn't get it by taking away something from you that made you less human than you were before. You didn't become less human after you had a child than before you had a child. Why are you making it so complicated?
Quote So you have two Gods who are infinitely equal, isn’t that what you believe? I know that we have had a discussion about two called God before where I quoted some church father and we both agreed with it. Maybe I can find it. I'll look.
Quote The Father and Jesus are not natural are they? How can you compare the Father and Jesus with the reproduction of a human man and woman? Did your husband literally bring birth to your Son? The Father and Jesus are supernatural, not natural, true. I am sure He can explain how He can have an offspring to you better than I can…I am limited to what I know about having an offspring…so are you, btw, and you can't begin to say that He couldn't have always contained an offspring and then begotten Him
.Kathi
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 29 2011,12:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 29 2011,09:19) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,16:55) Keith,
Also, Jack believes that the Son had a beginning because there was a time when He was not the Son. I think he believes that the Word didn't have a beginning, but as the Son, the Son had a beginning. From what I can tell anyway. You do have different Jesus' because His Jesus wasn't a Son till the resurrection, your Jesus was always eternally begotten…big difference whether you like it or not.Kathi
No!Not at all because once again the end result is what is important. Jack believes in Three persons in One God, not 2 Gods.
Big difference!
Jack simply links his manhood to Jesus being the Son, and that is scriptural because accordingly as he has shown you that it was after his resurrection that he was declared a Son.
Do you disagree with that?
WJ
Keith,Exactly! Though my view of Christ's Sonship is different it is not 'anathema” like Kathi's Arian view that there was a time whn Jesus was not. Never have I been told by fellow trinitarians that my view is 'anathema.'
Kathi ignores that Psalm 2 says, “I have set My King upon my holy hill…this day I have begotten You.”
Christ was NOT set upon God's holy hill as King UNTIL His resurrection. The Psalm says that it was this time that Christ was 'begotten.'
Jack
Jack,
There was a time when Jesus was not. However, there was never a time when the Son of God was not and that is what I believe. So if you want to call me an Arian, then you do so in error.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 29 2011,06:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,13:51) Kerwin Yet we don't have any history of any of those Fathers to reject the creeds.
We have the untrustworthy testimony of Eusebius (A follower of Arius) who apparantly sighned off on the Trinity as accepting it yet all along he rejected it.
WJ
Hey Kerwin,The 325 delgates that did show up the the Council of Nicea represented only 18% of the church leaders at that time. It would be interesting to read some letters from the other 82% that didn't show, or weren't invited.
mike
There would have most likely been more desention if politics in general is any example.Just immagin one political party calling together a council to resolve a situation. I wonder how many of those that disagreee with their parties agenda they would invite?
Of course some might say that those that did the inviting were saints and so did not show favortism.
Worshipping Jesus,
You wrote:
Quote Kerwin
Yet we don't have any history of any of those Fathers to reject the creeds.
We have the untrustworthy testimony of Eusebius (A follower of Arius) who apparantly sighned off on the Trinity as accepting it yet all along he rejected it.
WJ
From what I have heard the tenet of trinitarianism was not seddled until a later council and Eusebius' disagreement was more about word choice and its possible consequences than anything concrete. Perhaps you have heard different.
Kathi said:
Quote I still don't understand how you can say that He 'became' a Son and not imply at the same time that He once wasn't a Son. If He once wasn't a Son, then there was a time when the Son was not.
Hi Kathi,Read the Nicene Creed again. Though I dissent on the meaning of the term 'Son' and on the time of the 'begetting' in reference to Jesus, the Creed does NOT anathematize my view because I do not say that there was a time when He was not. Neither do I say, “before He was begotten He was not.”
The Nicean Creed says,
And those that say 'there was when he was not,'
and, 'Before he was begotten he was not'
These the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.
Read it carefully Kathi. I do NOT say, “Before He was begotten He was not.” I just put the begetting at His resurrection where David and Peter and Paul put it and I see the term 'Son' as the name of His office. Christ's fathers David and Solomon also had the same title of “Firstborn Son.”
Jack
Hi Jack,
Are you aware that I do not say “before He was begotten He was not” also?
Correct me if I am wrong but you believe that:
The Second Person was the Word within the mind of the First Person and became a Second Person.
or,
The Word is actually a person within the mind of the First Person, though a different person than the First Person.
or
The Word is wisdom of the First Person as another Second Person.Also, when I mentioned to Keith that there was a council that would anathema your idea of when the Word was begotten, I didn't mean the Council of Nicea that wrote the Nicene Creed. Here is what was said:
Quote 2. If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.
from: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTAN2.HTMI said that to make the point that it is no small matter to deny the nativity of the Word before the ages according to this council and Keith takes the difference you and he has as insignificant because you both have a 3 in 1 God. I think the matter is significant and shows two different Jesus'.
If Keith thinks the Sonship of the Word is not a nativity before the ages but merely an appointment to an office, he would probably be anathema'd from that belief also according to the above quote of the council. You both have two different Second Persons, one who took office of Son before the ages and one who took office of the Son after the resurrection. I'm not sure that Keith thinks that the Son was just an office before the ages though.
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 29 2011,21:02) Hi Keith,
Do you believe that the sonship is just an 'office' given to the 'Word?' Or do you believe it is a relationship that the Father/Son have before the ages. If the 'Word' being a Son is just an office then it would seem that the 'first person of the trinity' is only holding an office as Father and not a literal Father in regards to the Son. Anyway, please answer that question for me, the one that I bolded here.Thanks,
Kathi
KathiI believe that Jesus relationship was eternally the same and never changed. He was the Son but was declared to be “the Son” at his natural birth and his resurection.
Just as you believe he “always” existed but was not seen until he was “born” from the Father.
The difference is simple. You believe Jesus the Word that was with God “changed” because he wasn't the “Son” untill he became the Fathers offspring, right?
Seriously how can you say that your theology lines up with the Fathers that believes the “Word that was God” always was with God and always was God?
If the Word that was with God and was God could not change (since God, and his eternal essence cannot change) then how can you say a “Son” was born as another being and not have changed?
I believe that if Jesus is the same “eternal essence” of the Father then to say he came into existence as some other being as God is to say that his essence as God the Son would have changed to become the Son.
In other words you have God reproducing himself and that is impossible because God is infinite and does not bring birth to infinite beings.
The Forefathers speak against dividing his essence (being) and that is why they said..
[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]
If his essence “became” a Son then that means something changed.
So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. **AND YET THEY ARE NOT THREE GODS, BUT ONE GOD**.
This is not at all what you believe!
WJ
Keith,
My son didn't become my son at the time he was begotten…he already was my son before he was begotten. The Son of God was the Son before He was begotten…He always existed as the Son but didn't always exist before the ages as the begotten Son. He wasn't begotten till “Let there be light.” That is my understanding.
KathiI am editing this to add that my use of 'begetting' does not mean conceived and brought through gestation and birthed. I use the term to mean an existing pre-begotten offspring brought out by birth…the offspring within the Father becomes manifested to be along side the Father.
Keith,
I found what I was looking for regarding how each are referred as God yet there is one God.quote:
[5.] Ver. 5. “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are gods many and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we unto Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him.” Since he had said, that “an idol is nothing” and that “there is no other God;” and yet there were idols and there were those that were called gods; that he might not seem to be contradicting plain facts, he goes on to say, “For though there be that are called gods, as indeed there are;” not absolutely, “there are;” but, “called,” not in reality having this but in name: “be it in heaven or on earth:—in heaven,” meaning the sun and the moon and the remainder of the choir of stars; for these too the Greeks worshipped: but upon the earth demons, and all those who had been made gods of men:—“yet to us there is One God, the Father.” In the first instance having expressed it without the word “Father,” and said, “there is no God but one,” he now adds this also, when he had utterly cast out the others.
Next, he adduces what indeed is the greatest token of divinity; “of Whom are all things.” For this implies also that those others are not gods. For it is said (Jer. x. 11.), “Let the gods who made not the heaven and the earth perish.” Then he subjoins what is not less than this, “and we unto Him.” For when he saith, “of Whom are all things,” he means the creation and the bringing of things out of nothing into existence. But when he saith, “and we unto Him,” he speaks of the word of faith and mutual
114
appropriation (οἰκειώσεως), as also he said before (1 Cor. i. 30.), “but of Him are ye also in Christ Jesus.” In two ways we are of Him, by being made when we were not, and by being made believers. For this also is a creation: a thing which he also declares elsewhere; (Ephes. ii. 15.) “that He might create in Himself of the twain one new man.”
“And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him.” And in regard to Christ again, we must conceive of this in like manner. For through Him the race of men was both produced out of nothing into existence, and returned from error to truth. So that as to the phrase “of Whom,” it is not to be understood apart from Christ. For of Him, through Christ, were we created.
[6.] Nor yet, if you observe, hath he distributed the names as if belonging exclusively, assigning to the Son the name Lord, and to the Father, God. For the Scripture useth also often to interchange them; as when it saith, (Ps. cx. 1.) “The Lord saith unto My Lord;” and again, (Ps. lxv. 8.) “Wherefore God Thy God hath appointed Thee;” and, (Rom. ix. 5.) “Of Whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is God over all.” And in many instances you may see these names changing their places. Besides, if they were allotted to each nature severally, and if the Son were not God, and God as the Father, yet continuing a Son: after saying, “but to us there is but One God,” it would have been superfluous, his adding the word “Father,” with a view to declare the Unbegotten. For the word of God was sufficient to explain this, if it were such as to denote Him only.
And this is not all, but there is another remark to make: that if you say, “Because it is said ‘One God,’ therefore the word God doth not apply to the Son;” observe that the same holds of the Son also. For the Son also is called “One Lord,” yet we do not maintain that therefore the term Lord applies to Him alone. So then, the same force which the expression “One” has, applied to the Son, it has also, applied to the Father. And as the Father is not thrust out from being the Lord, in the same sense as the Son is the Lord, because He, the Son, is spoken of as one Lord; so neither does it cast out the Son from being God, in the same sense as the Father is God, because the Father is styled One God.
[7.] Now if any were to say, “Why did he make no mention of the Spirit?” our answer might be this: His argument was with idolaters, and the contention was about “gods many and lords many.” And this is why, having called the Father, God, he calls the Son, Lord. If now he ventured not to call the Father Lord together with the Son, lest they might suspect him to be speaking of two Lords; nor yet the Son, God, with the Father, lest he might be supposed to speak of two Gods: why marvel at his not having mentioned the Spirit? His contest was, so far, with the Gentiles: his point, to signify that with us there is no plurality of Gods. Wherefore he keeps hold continually of this word, “One;” saying, “There is no God but One; and, to us there is One God, and One Lord.” From which it is plain, that to spare the weakness of the hearers he used this mode of explanation, and for this reason made no mention at all of the Spirit. For if it be not this, neither ought he to make mention of the Spirit elsewhere, nor to join Him with the Father and the Son. For if He be rejected from the Father and Son, much more ought He not to be put in the same rank with them in the matter of Baptism; where most especially the dignity of the Godhead appears and gifts are bestowed which pertain to God alone to afford. Thus then I have assigned the cause why in this place He is passed over in silence. Now do thou if this be not the true reason, tell me, why He is ranked with Them in Baptism? But thou canst not give any other reason but His being of equal honor. At any rate, when he has no such constraint upon him, he puts Him in the same rank, saying thus: (2 Cor. xiii. 14.) “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and the Father,9494 καὶ Πατρος, om. in rec. text. and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all:” and again, (ch. xii. 4.) “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit: and there are diversities of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of workings but the same God.” But because now his speech was with Greeks and the weaker sort of the converts from among Greeks, for this reason he husbands it (ταμιεύεται) so far. And this is what the prophets do in regard of the Son; no where making mention of Him plainly because of the infirmity of the hearers.http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xxi.html
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 30 2011,17:06) Keith,
My son didn't become my son at the time he was begotten…he already was my son before he was begotten. The Son of God was the Son before He was begotten…He always existed as the Son but didn't always exist before the ages as the begotten Son. He wasn't begotten till “Let there be light.” That is my understanding.
Kathi
KathiOK good. Then how are you saying anything different than Jack except “when” he was begotten?
The question is when was he begotten?
So in other words the Son didn't or did create the waters and the earth before the light of day one?
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
